Alcuitas v. Canada (Attorney General)

Alcuitas v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-05-05 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 185 File numbers A-472-03 Decision Content Date: 20040505 Docket: A-472-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 185 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NOËL J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: MARIA LIGAYA ALCUITAS Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia on May 5, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on May 5, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LINDEN J.A. Date: 20040505 Docket: A-472-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 185 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. NOËL J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: MARIA LIGAYA ALCUITAS Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia on May 5, 2004) LINDEN J.A. [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by an Umpire dated July 9, 2003, in which a Board of Referee's decision was upheld to the effect that the Applicant employee did not have just cause for leaving her employment pursuant to section 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act. [2] Upon being invited by Court to present her oral representations, the Applicant declined to do so, preferring instead to rely on her written representations contained in her Memorandum of Fact and Law, despite her apparent fluency in English and her apparent ability to advance her case. Following the oral presentation by counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, she again declined to make any oral representations when invited by the Court to do so. The Applicant's father was seated at the counsel table with her during the entire hearing of this case. [3] The first issue of the Applicant is that the Umpire exceeded his jurisdiction by substituting his own opinion for that of the Board. We do not agree. While he may have referred to certain facts in the record, the Umpire did not substitute his own opinion for that of the Board, but rather agreed with the conclusions of the Board. [4] The second contention of the Applicant is that the wrong test was employed by the Umpire, who should have taken into account various additional circumstances alleged by the Applicant which would have amounted to just cause for leaving. We disagree. The Board of Referees applied the correct test to the facts before it and the Umpire properly decided that its decision was not unreasonable in the circumstances. [5] As for the third issue, that the benefit of the doubt was not given to the Applicant, according to subsection 49(2) of the Act, this is only available where the evidence on each side of the issue is equally balanced. In this case, it was clear to the Board and the Umpire that there was a reasonable alternative to leaving in all the circumstances of the case. Hence subsection 49(2) was not applicable. [6] The Application will be dismissed, without costs in the circumstances. (Sgd.) "Allen M. Linden" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-472-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: MARIA LIGAYA ALCUITAS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: May 05, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : LINDEN J. A. DATED: May 05, 2004 APPEARANCES: Ms. Maria Ligaya Alcuitas FOR APPLICANT Ms. Mary Ann Barker FOR RESPONDENT SOLICITOR OF RECORD: Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada